FLEEING POLICE

In 1995 four narcotics officers' patrol cars approached a man on a Chicago
street. The man suddenly fled. One of the officers caught him and found an
illegal gun during a search.

Should police be allowed to stop and frisk individuals who flee their
presence?

The Supreme Court recently said yes - to a point. The Court unanimously
agreed in Illinois v. Wardlow that police officers can perform
stop-and-frisk searches on those who flee them as long as the officers have
reasonable suspicions, among other factors.

But the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Chicago police search.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "The
determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on common-sense
judgments and inferences about human behavior." Rehnquist said the suspect
was standing in an area known for drug-trafficking before his sudden,
unprovoked flight from the police.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying, "There is also the possibility
that the fleeing person is entirely innocent, but, with or without
justification, believes that contact with the police can itself be
dangerous, apart from any criminal activity associated with the officer's
sudden presence."

The Chief Justice was right. He concluded, "Headlong flight - wherever it
occurs - is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative
of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such."

The police arrest criminals after the commission of crimes; the citizenry
expects them to prevent crimes as well. The Chicago search resulted in a
recovered gun. It passed the reasonable suspicion test.